- We need clean air, potable water, and untainted nutrition
Duh! How would I implement this? Reduce regulation and let the market handle it. As I showed in my earlier post on CF light bulbs, they are bad for the environment. Why do we use them? Government regulations and incentives. "The pill" is polluting our water supplies, and destroying our wildlife and fish. And our government wants to make it free?
- Follow facts, not beliefs
More excellent advice. On many fronts today, from abortion to global warming, people believe what the government or media tell us instead of finding out the facts. Sadly, finding the facts is not always easy, because lots of people claim things as fact that are actually beliefs. Things like "if abortion weren't legal tens of thousands of women would die each year." That is, in fact, a false statement made up by NARAL co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson. Dr. Nathanson confesses in his book, Aborting America "I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful [Nathanson’s italics] figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"
- Try more solutions simultaneouly
A capital idea! Educational problems? Stop legislating "solutions" at the federal level and let states and even local communities try different solutions. Likewise economic issues, social issues, etc. The Catholic church proposes the concept of subsidiarity which states that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done by a smaller and simpler organization. The Catechism states:
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
- Incentives for the good/disincentives for the bad
Interesting idea, if we acknowledge the existence of "good" and "bad". Too often I hear the people proposing government incentives for [their favorite thing] also tell me that "good" and "bad" are relative, and therefore up to the individual. Well, then how can you say you are promoting the good? You are only trying to force your opinion on others.
What "good" are we trying to promote by overturning the definition of marriage? By overturning the definition of human life? By persecuting or forbidding religious expression?
- Make brain fitness mandatory
I though that was called education and it was mandatory.
- Give NASA another mission
Here I agree 100%. From an economic viewpoint, every $1 spent on NASA results in $7 funneled into the US economy. Form a "green" standpoint, most of the energy saving or alternate energy technology we have today, from solar panels to hybrid cars, are either directly from or spinoffs of NASA technology.
- Work in groups of three to nine
Although this is great in principle, what does this mean? Most of the decision makers are already in small groups, with the notable exception of our federal government. Elect "triumvirates"? Perhaps it's worth a try, but can you get anyone to go along with it?
- Get moving
Another good idea, but why isn't this "mandatory" like the "brain fitness" (or would that be an incentive)?
- Separate correlations from causations
A corollary of "follow fact, not belief." Of course, correlation can be faked, and it's not always easy to determine causality.
- Don't blame people for systemic problems
...and it's corollary, don't absolve people of personal responsibility for their choices. Again I would point to subsidiarity. Were society to not infringe on personal freedom, "systemic problems" would become personal problems, and could be dealt with by individuals.
- Get biologists on board
Amen sistah! Despite the testimony before Congress of numerous scientists and physicians that human life begins at conception, we continue to have politicians saying things like "that's above my pay grade."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
- Just say yes
As Ms. Costa says "Even if solutions are flawed, we need to support those we feel have the potential to do more good than harm." Of course, the flip side of that is we need to oppose solutions which do more harm than good.
So here's my proposal, and I can honestly say there is objective scientific evidence that it does more good than harm. Abolish abortion, reduce centralized government, reduce regulation and stop trampling on personal freedom and the essential structure of the family. I expect Ms. Costa to jump on board with a resounding "Yes!"